Boots Pharmacist Suspended for Stealing Codeine and Failing to Report Police Caution

Date of Decision: August 1, 2025

Registrant's Role: Pharmacist

Allegations:

• Attended the pharmacy on multiple dates while signed off sick
• Accessed the pharmacy's stock management system ("Columbus") without authorisation
• Entered the dispensary and dispensed medication for personal use
• Ordered large quantities of controlled drugs (codeine and diazepam) without proper justification
• Accepted a police caution for theft of codeine from employer
• Failed to declare the police caution to the GPhC within the required seven-day timeframe

Outcome: Suspension for 8 months with review

GPhC Standards Breached:

• Standard 5 – Pharmacy professionals must use their professional judgement
• Standard 6 – Pharmacy professionals must behave in a professional manner
• Standard 8 – Pharmacy professionals must speak up when they have concerns or when things go wrong
• Standard 9 – Pharmacy professionals must demonstrate leadership

Case Summary

Allegations:
This case involves serious allegations against a pharmacist, who was employed at a Boots Pharmacy branch in Northumberland. The issues arose between April and August 2022 and culminated in a police caution for theft in December 2022. Key allegations included accessing pharmacy systems and the dispensary while signed off sick, manually ordering large quantities of controlled drugs (including 30mg codeine and 2mg diazepam), and self-dispensing medication without authorisation or appropriate clinical oversight.

On 5 August 2022, the registrant entered the dispensary, selected medication for their own prescription, accuracy-checked and clinically checked it themselves, and dispensed it—all while not on duty and signed off sick. CCTV footage and system access logs confirmed these actions. On three dates (5, 13, and 20 August 2022), the registrant stole packs of codeine, leading to a police caution for theft by employee.

Additionally, the registrant failed to notify the GPhC of the caution within seven days, as required by the rules. They eventually self-reported five months later, citing police assurances that the matter would be handled on their behalf.

Findings:
The Fitness to Practise Committee found the majority of the allegations proved, including the pharmacist’s unauthorised access to the pharmacy and systems, dispensing their own medication, and the police caution. However, the panel did not find proved that the earlier large manual orders of controlled drugs were necessarily dishonest or intended for personal use, citing insufficient evidence to demonstrate these were unjustified or that the pharmacist knew them to be so.

Nonetheless, the panel considered the act of self-dispensing controlled drugs without oversight, while not on duty, and the theft of medications to be serious breaches of professional standards.

GPhC Determination on Impairment:
The committee concluded that the pharmacist’s fitness to practise was currently impaired. This was based on:

• The seriousness of the misconduct.
• Dishonesty related to theft of controlled drugs.
• A lack of current insight or remediation.
• Continued risk of repetition due to absence of evidence of changed behaviour or improved insight.

The panel noted that although some insight had been demonstrated early in the process—particularly in the registrant’s own acknowledgment of wrongdoing—there had been a complete disengagement from proceedings thereafter. The panel expressed concern that despite being notified of the hearing and given opportunities to respond, the registrant chose not to participate.

The determination emphasized the need to uphold public trust in the pharmacy profession. As the committee noted:

“An informed member of the public would be shocked and their confidence in the profession would be undermined if they learned that a pharmacy professional could practise without restriction after acting unprofessionally, stealing and failing in his obligations to inform his regulator of a police caution.”

Sanction:
After considering aggravating and mitigating factors, the Committee imposed an 8-month suspension with a review before potential reinstatement. Key aggravating factors included:

• The repeated dishonesty within a short time.
• Abuse of professional and managerial trust.
• Lack of recent engagement or insight.

Mitigating circumstances included some early admissions and acknowledgment of wrongdoing.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals:

1. Strict boundaries must be maintained while signed off sick. Attending the pharmacy and accessing systems or the dispensary when not authorised is a serious breach of conduct.
2. Self-dispensing is never acceptable. Dispensing one’s own prescriptions compromises clinical oversight, raises safety concerns, and erodes public trust.
3. Manual ordering of controlled drugs must be justified and documented. Although no dishonesty was found for earlier orders, the case highlights the importance of transparent and justifiable ordering practices.
4. Timely communication with the GPhC is essential. Pharmacists must report police cautions or convictions promptly. Delegating this responsibility to others—even the police—is not acceptable.
5. Insight and engagement matter. Remediation and insight can influence the outcome of a case. Silence or disengagement can be viewed as a lack of responsibility and professionalism.
6. Professional trust is paramount. Dishonest conduct, even in limited instances, can have long-lasting implications for a pharmacist’s ability to practise.

This case serves as a powerful reminder that the responsibilities of pharmacists extend beyond clinical practice. Ethical conduct, adherence to professional standards, and openness with regulators are non-negotiable pillars of professional life.

Original Case Document

The full determination transcript is available to logged in users.

Log in or Register for free to access.